absolutely not splitting hairs, you are trying very hard to justify your beliefs though I will say that....and again whatever you seem like a good dude so if youre bisexual who cares.

But dont sit there and judge someone b/c they view an abnormal behavior as abnormal and feel it shouldnt be normalized in society.

You seem like an okay dude yourself, tonymctones. Trust me, I don't judge. You have your reasons for feeling like you do and I have mine. Either way, like I said before, it's all good as far as I am concerned.

Incidentally, I am not sure just how bisexual I am today in practice, since I have not had sex with another male (other than myself) since I can't remember when. The prostatectomy killed what little was left of my libido, so I really don't crave sex at all. Maybe it's a biological thing. I have no need to procreate, been there, done that, and love the results. I have a son and a daughter, both longtime married mature adults with children. The oldest of my wife and my four grandchildren is an adult who lives with her boyfriend, works and goes to college. Our two youngest of our grandchildren will be 16 this year. I just hope I live long enough to have great grandchildren....not pushing anyone in the early parenthood though. As for a romantic relationship the only one I've had in the last 54 years has been with my wife.

Didn't that Kinsey fellow make some of his studies off prison population? Not to mention, didn't he had a thing for experimenting with little boys, even infants?

Really? I've not heard of any of this. Where did you hear it from?

If this is your source, don't believe everything every crackpot writes or says.

Quote

Judith A. Reisman, born April 11, 1935) is a controversial American conservative writer best known for her criticism and condemnation of the work and legacy of Alfred Kinsey.

Over the following years her accusations against Kinsey became increasingly serious; she said he was a fraud who had employed and relied on pedophiles for his research,[6] and went on to claim that Kinsey himself sexually abused children. This allegation drew a response from Kinsey biographer James H. Jones, who wrote that unless new evidence to the contrary becomes available, Reisman's claims that Kinsey may have witnessed or personally participated in child molestation under the guise of scientific research must be considered groundless.

Prior to the release of the 2004 film Kinsey, Reisman and Laura Schlessinger attempted to place an advertisement "alleging Kinsey was a pervert and a pedophile".

LMFAO if you have a psych degree then you know the many many issues with the study, its parameters and the conclusions it draws.

Sorry hoss, try again...

I can make up a study that gives me any result I want, doesnt make it right....

PS I am not bragging brain child, I was simply letting you know as you stated that no one with education in psych believes like I do

That is not a study, you didn't even look at what I posted, Kinsey is famous for his sex research and is considered a pioneer and icon in the field. He knows a lot more then you or me, so your shitty degree (I have the same except neuroscience) means nothing in the face of facts. You can post your opinion all you want, it's wrong.

Why don't you read more about it instead of just putting out wild conjecture. That is your thing, I get it.

WRONG! I did read more about it, hence the reason for my questions (which were somewhat rhetorical).

For example:

“Kinsey never carried out experiments on the sexual responses of children or employed or trained anyone else to do so for him,” wrote former Institute director John Bancroft, M.D., in a 2005 article, “Alfred Kinsey’s work 50 years on,” currently available on the Kinsey Institute website.

At least one former Kinsey Institute director, however, departed from this line, according to Barber. Kinsey’s successor, Paul Gebhard, Ph.D., assumed the leadership of the Kinsey Institute when Kinsey died, and ran the organization from 1956 to 1982.

“Kinsey’s colleague, Gebhard, acknowledged they were coordinating with nursery school directors and operators and parents and grandparents of these kids to obtain the so-called research,” Barber told WND. “He admitted they knowingly were collaborating with these people as they molested the children, and were making use of the fruit of the poisonous tree in Kinsey’s research.

“There’s pre-Kinsey and post-Kinsey,” Barber continued. “Unfortunately we live in a post-Kinsey world and have suffered as a culture tremendously for it … the U.S. Supreme Court has cited Kinsey’s research in Romer, Lawrence v Texas, and other decisions having to do with sexual orientation. Those decisions were made based on fraudulent information from Alfred Kinsey and his brood of perverts.” Kinsey’s research findings have been used to change laws regarding sex around the world.

Crouse told WND people today “think he’s the research guru who knew everything about sex.

“Only a handful of academics understand how fraudulent he was,” she said.

“He had very limited sampling, he did not follow the correct academic procedure for having legitimate samples. He used an extraordinary amount of personal stories about sexual behavior. He was a pseudo-scientist, a fraud, though his work is still cited in academia.

“People don’t realize the people in Kinsey’s studies were not normal, average Americans. They were prostitutes, criminals, the only folks willing to be involved in such slimy research. It was not legitimate research at all. It has been one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated against the American people in our history.”

White compared Kinsey’s research to the U.S. government’s 1940s syphilis research in Guatemala, which elicited a flood of Obama administration apologies on Oct. 1.

“I think the experimentation done with government funding is an ongoing issue,” White told WND. “That’s what was going on with Kinsey. Scientific experimentation. They didn’t care about people, they cared about statistics. I was a statistic just like those people in Guatemala were.”

Reisman pointed out that the U.S. government apologized for what it did in Guatemala, “but that was all over long ago.”

“This was all done in the United States and still is being used to gut our laws and destroy our morality,” she said. “He is still the father of the sexual revolution and all that flows from it. And poor ‘Esther’ just stands there and says ‘What about me, what about all the people this was done to?’”

Robert Knight, director of a 1995 documentary, “The Children of Table 34,” which addressed the Kinsey controversy, said Esther’s testimony “scratches the surface of one of the 20th Century’s greatest and most enduring scandals.”

“Millions have been hurt by the false view of sexuality hatched in criminal fashion by Alfred Kinsey and his associates,” Knight said. “If Esther’s story and that of other victims was widely known, the Kinsey castle would come crashing down, bringing with it a sex education establishment dedicated to raping children’s innocence, plying them with condoms and pushing them toward either the abortion clinic or a gay bar.”

WRONG! I did read more about it, hence the reason for my questions (which were somewhat rhetorical).

For example:

“Kinsey never carried out experiments on the sexual responses of children or employed or trained anyone else to do so for him,” wrote former Institute director John Bancroft, M.D., in a 2005 article, “Alfred Kinsey’s work 50 years on,” currently available on the Kinsey Institute website.

At least one former Kinsey Institute director, however, departed from this line, according to Barber. Kinsey’s successor, Paul Gebhard, Ph.D., assumed the leadership of the Kinsey Institute when Kinsey died, and ran the organization from 1956 to 1982.

“Kinsey’s colleague, Gebhard, acknowledged they were coordinating with nursery school directors and operators and parents and grandparents of these kids to obtain the so-called research,” Barber told WND. “He admitted they knowingly were collaborating with these people as they molested the children, and were making use of the fruit of the poisonous tree in Kinsey’s research.

“There’s pre-Kinsey and post-Kinsey,” Barber continued. “Unfortunately we live in a post-Kinsey world and have suffered as a culture tremendously for it … the U.S. Supreme Court has cited Kinsey’s research in Romer, Lawrence v Texas, and other decisions having to do with sexual orientation. Those decisions were made based on fraudulent information from Alfred Kinsey and his brood of perverts.” Kinsey’s research findings have been used to change laws regarding sex around the world.

Crouse told WND people today “think he’s the research guru who knew everything about sex.

“Only a handful of academics understand how fraudulent he was,” she said.

“He had very limited sampling, he did not follow the correct academic procedure for having legitimate samples. He used an extraordinary amount of personal stories about sexual behavior. He was a pseudo-scientist, a fraud, though his work is still cited in academia.

“People don’t realize the people in Kinsey’s studies were not normal, average Americans. They were prostitutes, criminals, the only folks willing to be involved in such slimy research. It was not legitimate research at all. It has been one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated against the American people in our history.”

White compared Kinsey’s research to the U.S. government’s 1940s syphilis research in Guatemala, which elicited a flood of Obama administration apologies on Oct. 1.

“I think the experimentation done with government funding is an ongoing issue,” White told WND. “That’s what was going on with Kinsey. Scientific experimentation. They didn’t care about people, they cared about statistics. I was a statistic just like those people in Guatemala were.”

Reisman pointed out that the U.S. government apologized for what it did in Guatemala, “but that was all over long ago.”

“This was all done in the United States and still is being used to gut our laws and destroy our morality,” she said. “He is still the father of the sexual revolution and all that flows from it. And poor ‘Esther’ just stands there and says ‘What about me, what about all the people this was done to?’”

Robert Knight, director of a 1995 documentary, “The Children of Table 34,” which addressed the Kinsey controversy, said Esther’s testimony “scratches the surface of one of the 20th Century’s greatest and most enduring scandals.”

“Millions have been hurt by the false view of sexuality hatched in criminal fashion by Alfred Kinsey and his associates,” Knight said. “If Esther’s story and that of other victims was widely known, the Kinsey castle would come crashing down, bringing with it a sex education establishment dedicated to raping children’s innocence, plying them with condoms and pushing them toward either the abortion clinic or a gay bar.”

WRONG! I did read more about it, hence the reason for my questions (which were somewhat rhetorical).

For example:

“Kinsey never carried out experiments on the sexual responses of children or employed or trained anyone else to do so for him,” wrote former Institute director John Bancroft, M.D., in a 2005 article, “Alfred Kinsey’s work 50 years on,” currently available on the Kinsey Institute website.

At least one former Kinsey Institute director, however, departed from this line, according to Barber. Kinsey’s successor, Paul Gebhard, Ph.D., assumed the leadership of the Kinsey Institute when Kinsey died, and ran the organization from 1956 to 1982.

“Kinsey’s colleague, Gebhard, acknowledged they were coordinating with nursery school directors and operators and parents and grandparents of these kids to obtain the so-called research,” Barber told WND. “He admitted they knowingly were collaborating with these people as they molested the children, and were making use of the fruit of the poisonous tree in Kinsey’s research.

“There’s pre-Kinsey and post-Kinsey,” Barber continued. “Unfortunately we live in a post-Kinsey world and have suffered as a culture tremendously for it … the U.S. Supreme Court has cited Kinsey’s research in Romer, Lawrence v Texas, and other decisions having to do with sexual orientation. Those decisions were made based on fraudulent information from Alfred Kinsey and his brood of perverts.” Kinsey’s research findings have been used to change laws regarding sex around the world.

Crouse told WND people today “think he’s the research guru who knew everything about sex.

“Only a handful of academics understand how fraudulent he was,” she said.

“He had very limited sampling, he did not follow the correct academic procedure for having legitimate samples. He used an extraordinary amount of personal stories about sexual behavior. He was a pseudo-scientist, a fraud, though his work is still cited in academia.

“People don’t realize the people in Kinsey’s studies were not normal, average Americans. They were prostitutes, criminals, the only folks willing to be involved in such slimy research. It was not legitimate research at all. It has been one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated against the American people in our history.”

White compared Kinsey’s research to the U.S. government’s 1940s syphilis research in Guatemala, which elicited a flood of Obama administration apologies on Oct. 1.

“I think the experimentation done with government funding is an ongoing issue,” White told WND. “That’s what was going on with Kinsey. Scientific experimentation. They didn’t care about people, they cared about statistics. I was a statistic just like those people in Guatemala were.”

Reisman pointed out that the U.S. government apologized for what it did in Guatemala, “but that was all over long ago.”

“This was all done in the United States and still is being used to gut our laws and destroy our morality,” she said. “He is still the father of the sexual revolution and all that flows from it. And poor ‘Esther’ just stands there and says ‘What about me, what about all the people this was done to?’”

Robert Knight, director of a 1995 documentary, “The Children of Table 34,” which addressed the Kinsey controversy, said Esther’s testimony “scratches the surface of one of the 20th Century’s greatest and most enduring scandals.”

“Millions have been hurt by the false view of sexuality hatched in criminal fashion by Alfred Kinsey and his associates,” Knight said. “If Esther’s story and that of other victims was widely known, the Kinsey castle would come crashing down, bringing with it a sex education establishment dedicated to raping children’s innocence, plying them with condoms and pushing them toward either the abortion clinic or a gay bar.”

Do you consider the sensationalist rag you quoted from a reliable source? What a shame that some people are so gullible as to believe everything they read. I suppose you think the Inquirer is accurate and true as well.

Do you consider the sensationalist rag you quoted from a reliable source? What a shame that some people are so gullible as to believe everything they read. I suppose you think the Inquirer is accurate and true as well.

It appears you're attacking the source, not the content within that source. It's a simple question: Did Kinsey or his succesor(s) perform such ghastly experiments on kids or not?

If you have a counter to the claim that Dr. Gebhard was involved with this child molestation stuff, let's see it.

It appears you're attacking the source, not the content within that source. It's a simple question: Did Kinsey or his succesor(s) perform such ghastly experiments on kids or not?

If you have a counter to the claim that Dr. Gebhard was involved with this child molestation stuff, let's see it.

When something is ridiculous like this is, there is no need to counter the claim because reasonable people don't take it seriously anyway.

I noticed while checking out at the market today that the Inquirer had a doctored photo of Kim Kardashian with a headline suggesting she's not really pregnant, just fat. http://sandrarose.com/2013/03/kim-kardashian-covers-the-national-enquirer/ I suppose you believe this too. Like I said there are gullible folks and then there are folks who are too intelligent to be taken in by ridiculous nonsense.

BTW, most intelligent people believe if the source is unreliable, the claims it holds are also not reliable. Essentially, attacking the source is the same thing and saying the content is false. N'est pas?

When something is ridiculous like this is, there is no need to counter the claim because reasonable people don't take it seriously anyway.

I noticed while checking out at the market today that the Inquirer had a doctored photo of Kim Kardashian with a headline suggesting she's not really pregnant, just fat. http://sandrarose.com/2013/03/kim-kardashian-covers-the-national-enquirer/ I suppose you believe this too. Like I said there are gullible folks and then there are folks who are too intelligent to be taken in by ridiculous nonsense.

BTW, most intelligent people believe if the source is unreliable, the claims it holds are also not reliable. Essentially, attacking the source is the same thing and saying the content is false. N'est pas?

True, although you can get reliable information from unreliable sources.

True, although you can get reliable information from unreliable sources.

certainly but such absurd claims would have been heard about no? it's not like saying a giant in psychology is paying people to rape kids would be a normal claim. Sounds like someone wants to discredit the guy based on a belief, perhaps the religious, anti-abortionist homophobes? Surely this kid rape if known wouldn't allow a wing of psychology in the Indiana university to seep through?

The religious people who combat science and try to force there beliefs on others are the worst kind of human.

certainly but such absurd claims would have been heard about no? it's not like saying a giant in psychology is paying people to rape kids would be a normal claim. Sounds like someone wants to discredit the guy based on a belief, perhaps the religious, anti-abortionist homophobes? Surely this kid rape if known wouldn't allow a wing of psychology in the Indiana university to seep through?

The religious people who combat science and try to force there beliefs on others are the worst kind of human.

Well I read the article McWay posted and those absurd claims have been heard about. You should read the article. It's possible the people mentioned in the article (who are highly educated) could just be "religious, anti-abortionist homophobes," but I doubt it.

You have some pretty strong views about religious people. I actually think the worst kind of human is one who abuses those are weaker and vulnerable. They're much higher on my evil list than religious people who "combat science."

True, although you can get reliable information from unreliable sources.

I suppose this is possible. However, how does one know it is reliable or true when the source has a long history of sensationalizing their reports by lying and fabricating?

Sometimes there is a very small grain of truth in what's reported. For instance, with regards to therapist studying children's sexuality, I have no doubt this is true not only for Kinsey and his clinicians in their day, but for psychologist and psychiatrist practicing today. Like it or not, kids are sometimes sexual.

I worked around school age children K-12 for thirty years prior to retiring from my job at 65. While one expects that high school age kids are sexual because they have already gone through puberty, one wouldn't expect this to be the case with elementary school kids, but it is in some cases. We had students as young as the third grade who were already identified as sexual predators.

I suppose this is possible. However, how does one know it is reliable or true when the source has a long history of sensationalizing their reports by lying and fabricating?

Sometimes there is a very small grain of truth in what's reported. For instance, with regards to therapist studying children's sexuality, I have no doubt this is true not only for Kinsey and his clinicians in their day, but for psychologist and psychiatrist practicing today. Like it or not, kids are sometimes sexual.

I worked around school age children K-12 for thirty years prior to retiring from my job at 65. While one expects that high school age kids are sexual because they have already gone through puberty, one wouldn't expect this to be the case with elementary school kids, but it is in some cases. We had students as young as the third grade who were already identified as sexual predators.

You definitely don't know if you don't read it. I can understand completely dismissing a source in some instances (for example one of those nutty CT websites). I do that.

On what basis did you conclude WND has a "long history of sensationalizing their reports by lying and fabricating"?

I'm asking a yes or no question. Do you believe the content of what MCWAY posted?

It's not a yes or no question. I don't have a position on whether the content (including the people quoted in the article) is accurate. I have no idea if it's true or false. I was addressing the issue of dismissing the content based solely on the source.